Stewart's Corral

Transcript for hearing CVH-13-05
page 44

visitor #

Click grey button to toggle how much detail is shown. Requires newer browser.

The name of the person speaking is abbreviated thusly:
RT = Ronald Tetreault, Petitioner
SA = Stewart Andreason, Respondant
JvS = James von Sauer, WSB # 26297, Attorney for Petitioner, PO Box 566, Republic, WA 99166
I have marked up in bold the highlights and key points of interest, and the outragous lies and tactics heard in court.

Clerk: All rise, Ferry County District Court is now in session. The honorable Gary Weber presiding. April 8th, 2013.
Judge: You may be seated ladies and gentlemen.
Judge: My understanding is we don't have a prosecutor until those cases that would be handled by the state and a public defender, or Mr. Graham a private attorney, you probably don't want to sit here and listen to me go through another case, so, Why don't you all, come back in 15 minutes. With no assurances that we will be ready to go in 15 minutes, again depends on the prosecutor, he's trying to handle a case upstairs and get it done. So he can come down and take care of us. Okay I apologize for the delay, nothing I can do about it, nothing these attorneys can do about it either. We'll just have to play it this way. Okay? So wWe're going to take the case of Ronald Tetreault vs. Stewart Andreason. Are those folks present?
Clerk: Mr. Tetreault, is it not working?
RT: Yeah, a little bit.
Clerk: Okay, sorry that's the best we can do in this courtroom.
Judge: This matter comes on this morning for a petition. A anti-harassment petition has been filed by Mr. Tetreault?
Attorney Steve Graham: Tetreault
Judge: And the cause number is CVH-13-05. And the other party is a Stewart Andreason. Is that correct?
SA: Yes.
Judge: And Mr. Tetreault, are you ready to go forward with your petition at this time?
RT: Yep.
Judge: Can you hear me sir?
RT: I'm very hard hearing your honor.
Judge: Well, is that helping you?
RT: I can't hear too good.
Judge: Well, is that helping you sir? Is that helping you today, the hearing aid you have there.
RT: Yeah, I can hear.
Judge: You can hear me. Okay. So you filed this sir, and you get to go first. Okay? So tell me what this is about.
RT: Well, we had a few problem on the past, ah, year you can see and you'll file receive a letter on, on 2-10. Basic, a rule of the place where I live, I didn't believe him. And since that time he'd been using that road and the cars which way
Judge: Excuse me sir. I will interrupt so I can follow through with what you're saying. You're saying that there is some kind of letter in this file, saying something about the property?
RT: Well he drive, he ride up property and my road with a horse, who tease my animal and create problem. Or stopping me on the road, to make me wait and go around me. That's why I file easement. I add
Judge: You have an easement sir?
RT: I have a easement, but is a private road on private property.
Judge: Okay. There is an easement on your property, is that what you're, what I'm understanding? You're saying there's an easement on your property?
RT: It's an easement on my property.
Judge: Okay, there's an easement on your property, right?
RT: For the people who have property behind me, I'm the only one live there.
Judge: Do you have a copy of that easement with you?
RT: No, I didn't think _ _
Judge: Okay
RT: We got all, everything in file, all my papers are in file.
Judge: All the papers that you filed? There is no easement in this file.
RT: Yeah, all the copy I got there
Judge: Sir, this doesn't have an easement in it. There is no documentation on your title, there is no title report here, there's nothing here to indicate that you have an easement.
Clerk: Judge Weber, there was something filed this morning, and I don't know what it was, but he brought it in, and it's a single page, and it was loose in there.
Judge: Okay. This here?
Clerk: That, yes. That is what he brought in. Two copies, the copy I can ask what this is.
Clerk: You brought this in this morning? What is that?
RT: That, two pro, by harassment he creates me to have a heart attack, I already have 4 stints in there. That's the reason.
Clerk: I didn't hear, I could not comprehend what you just said. What is this document?
RT: That's a proof I had a heart problem, and I don't need the harassment.
Judge: Have you seen this sir?
SA: No.
Judge: So you're moving to have this amended into the record, is that correct sir?
RT: That, That I have?
Judge: You're asking that this be made part of the record, the court record?
RT: You're honor! By harassing me, constantly, and he, he get me on the point to have a heart attack.
Judge: You're saying that his harassment caused you to have a heart attack?
RT: He harass me and my doggie ya, he got me nervous, an I, I got feel
Judge: When did you have your heart attack sir? ... When did you have your heart attack?
RT: No I didn't have any.
Judge: You didn't have one. Okay, so you're saying there's something here, if I understand this is a stint material, it was done back in June 17th of 2005. It was done in the hospital I assume right? By a doctor? A doctor Vedera?
RT: Yeah.
Judge: And this doctor was over on the coast, at ah, with a telephone number of 838-2960, is that correct?
RT: Yeah, I don't recall that much,
Judge: I'm just looking at your exhibit here sir.
RT: That's too long ago.
Judge: Well yeah, that's too long ago, so, what you're basically saying I believe, you're telling this court, that gee hey, I had a heart problem years ago, and this gentlemen by his actions is going to cause me to have another, to have me, cause me, and my dog to have a heart attack. Is that correct?
RT: Well, if he keep _adding?_ at it, he'll get me one.
Judge: Oh, okay. But it hasn't occurred? Has it?
RT: I didn't have one.
Judge: You haven't recently had, any problems with your heart, have you sir? As a result of this situation that's going on between you and this gentlemen?
RT: Well, As he go for it, and the potential of heart attack any time.
Judge: Well I don't a crystal ball, and I'm sure that you don't either, and, heaven forbid you have a heart attack,
Judge: but at this point, the court's not going to consider that there be a factor in this particular anti-harassment, petition you've brought, because it's too speculating, I can't do that.
RT: Well, huh, speculate I didn't have a video camera like he carry all day, to try to harass me with.
Judge: Okay, sir, I want to know, do you have someplace a copy of the document that indicates that you have a, an exclusive right to the easement that he doesn't have access to this property? That he can't use this easement?
RT: He can have access, I don't know about easement, is the people they have property he don't live, he live before me on the bottom, he can have rude, any road he can use except that one. I don't want to be harassed.
Judge: No sir, no sir. If there's an easement over your property,
RT: Yes it's an easement road.
Judge: If there's an easement on your property, and if it's an open easement, anybody can use the easement. So what you need to do, at least at this point, is to get your paperwork, and go talk to an attorney, to see if you can block, anyone using that access, except for the people who live above you. And that's not something I can resolve, I can't resolve that. That's not an issue that I can resolve in District court. That is an issue for the Superior Court.
RT: So that mean that man can _coach?_ he need to cross my property and harass my,   my place, harass me, another thing
Judge: Sir! Sir. All I'm telling you is, before you're going to get an order from this court, then you're going to have to have, something proving to you, to me, I'm the decider in this case at this moment. That you have an exclusive right to that property, and that this gentlemen doesn't have a right to it, to use it. Because he's claiming in his paperwork, that he does have a right.
RT: I got my, my,   my own, my deed on my property,
Judge: You got your deed to the property?
RT: Yes sir.
Judge: Okay, and does it have an easement on the deed?
RT: Easement?
Judge: Yeah, does it have an easement on the deed?
RT: Uh, i  It ought to. It has to!
Judge: (groan)
RT: Because all the road in Curlew they have easement.
Judge: Okay, all the roads have an easement. Okay? Go get the proof. Where's the proof of the pudding? The proof of the pudding is, you get your document out, you take it to somebody that can interpret it for you and tell you what's there. Unless you feel confident yourself to interpret it. Okay?
RT: Hmmm, (mumbles or swears) son of a
Judge: You don't understand this sir? How can I understand? You say he can't come on my property because, but there's an easement. He says I can go on your property because there's an easement too, all through the property, that I live on. I can go there, and I can go there, hither and yon, as long as I stay on the easement.
RT: Well, he allowed to go as you put it, as long as he doesn't harass me and harass my animal, to get him vicious.
Judge: Well, if your animal, sir,
RT: With a machete!
Judge: If we go to the next step, If we go to the next step, are you saying he can go on your road? Is that what you're telling me now?
RT: I don't want to be harassed from him, when he go by.
Judge: Okay excuse me sir, excuse me, let me finish. If that's what you're telling me, is that he can go on your property, right?
RT: Yes.
Judge: Okay, So he can go on that easement?
RT: He must! because that's like what you say, your honor. He have another road he can use.
Judge: Well, I'm just saying, you don't have any proof to tell me he can't go on your property. You admit there's an easement. And you admit he can go on your property. And so he can go on your property. Is it his harassing you? and how has he harassed you? You say you have a, in your paperwork here, you say you have a six foot fence. The dog can't go over the six foot fence.
RT: I got, so. I will ask you, your honor then, to postpone, I can, I can bring the proof of my property, I've been living there for fourteen years.
Judge: Okay, that's fine. We'll postpone it. We're going to postpone it for a month.
RT: And I'll bring you the copy.
Judge: That's when I'll be back here, next month. And at that time we'll take a look at it. I would suggest sir, that you take that paperwork, and if there's an easement on it, you go talk to an attorney about the easement, what rights you have in that easement. Okay? I'm not trying to tell you how to practice law. I'm just trying to tell you hey, you're talking to me, I know a little bit about property, I know a little bit about easements. And I know that usually, an easement is not exclusive to certain things. Okay? So that's what I'm telling you to do.
RT: So I'm just a victim of that man, who's got a pleasure to get on a _point?_.
Judge: Sir, we haven't got to that point yet. We haven't got past the point, because you want to go, you want to go get the paperwork. We haven't got to the point of where he's harassing you. And so far of, the only thing I have is, you know, I've heard nothing from you about, you just keep saying he's harassing you. I don't know any of the facts regarding What the supposed harassment is. Okay? But we're just trying to get past the first hurdle. The first hurdle we have is, do you have an exclusive easement, and he, and does he not have access to your property? And if it's a general easement, then I would believe that, you know, that he does have access. Okay? So you're going to go get that information.
RT: I'll get you the whole (mumbles) things
Judge: So I'm going to set this matter over, to next month,
Clerk: May 13th.
Judge: Yes. May 13th. We'll be here.
Clerk: 9:30.
Judge: 9:30. And I think I need some kind of order to,
Clerk: Okay.
Judge: And no harassment, no order harassment has been entered at this time, has it? No, so.
Clerk: It has?
Judge: No it hasn't.
Clerk: I didn't think so.
Judge: Nope. So.   And on your side sir, over here, so you don't feel like you've been totally ignored. You say something in this paperwork that you submitted to the court. Something as to an easement.
SA: Yes Sir.
Judge: And you say that there was a lawsuit?
SA: There has been a previous case, yes.
Judge: There has been a previous case. Maybe you want to get the information from that previous case to see what has been limited or not.
SA: I have that injunction here with me.
Judge: You have an injunction with you?
SA: Yes.
Judge: Okay, and maybe you want to provide a copy of that injunction. Do you have a copy also for, Mr. Tetreault?
SA: I'm sure he's got one, because he was involved in it.
Clerk: Judge Weber, (indistinct) order, not quite sure exactly what you wanted.
Judge: No just. We can reset it.
Clerk: I do have (indistinct) order it, of continuance.
Judge: Oh, do you have a _agree?_ order of continuance? Maybe these folks would read over it.
Clerk: (indistinct) like to have it back?
SA: Yes.
Judge: You can make a copy of it for, both Mr. and, myself. I think I'll just stick with this one here.
Clerk: Um,   I don't have a [copy] machine down here, however,
Judge: You can go ahead and,
Clerk: I was going to say, I can just ask, right here to make more.
Judge: If you would. Make two. One for the other gentlemen.
Judge: And I'm preparing an order, setting this matter over, to the next month. You gentlemen will have the opportunity to, ... review it.
Clerk: Here's your copy.
Judge: Okay, you want to see if they want to sign off on this?
Clerk: Okay.
Clerk: If you agree to this, you will sign right here for the respondent.
Clark: Thank you.
Clerk: If you agree to this, you will sign right here as petitioner.
Clerk: All right. Thank you. You guys will have to come up to the office to get a copy of this, because I don't have my _date?_ stamp down with me.
Judge: Okay?
RT: That'll be all.
Judge: Thank you gentlemen.
SA: Thank you.

Judge: The next matter we have is the, Tetreault and Anderson. Stewart J. Is that correct?
SA: Stewart E Andreason.
Judge: Both want to come forward. And the court's going to take about a 5 minute, go for a walk. Okay? Then I'll come back to you.   
Judge: Resume the hearing on, case.   I understand we now have a notice of appearance. Mr. Von Sauer on behalf of the plantiff. Or excuse me,   petitioner, is that correct?
JvS: Correct.
Judge: Ready to proceed. I think what we were waiting for on this particular case was some kind of documentation by your client as to, a easement that was on a road, in front of a residence.
JvS: Yes, I have a copy of the Curlew Rim Ranches Division number 3, which is the only document I was able to come up with regarding easements. That document is much too small for my eyes, so I went to the title company to have that language blown up, so at least I could read it. And that language at the bottom of page 2 states that, the   all the roads, trails, in the Curlew Subdivisions is for purposes of ingress and egress only. There are no recreational easements filed throughout the subdivision. At the present time, there are no public roads dedicated in the short plat. The short plat does indicate that should a homeowners association be developed, they would have the duty of maintaining, widen, and whatever they want with the roads, in lieu thereof they could dedicate it to the county. But that hasn't happened. So what we are dealing with is, private easements for purposes of egress, and ingress, to landowners parcels. And uh, i it's our position that that only allows people to and from their property, it doesn't constitute permission to run 4-wheelers, or to make these roadways a horse bridle path, or use them for any recreational purposes.
JvS: I have a copy of a Curlew Rim Ranches Division number 3 here for the court.
Judge: Have you shown that to the defendant, or uh,   respondent?
SA: I have seen this many years in the past, your honor. Auditors file number 159130.
Judge: Okay, and so, is it the testimony of your client, basically...   What is the testimony of your client going to be as to where this gentlemen resides, and where he resides, and is there  ?
JvS: Mr. Andreason resides 1.2 miles below, my client's residence. To get there is a very narrow, and steep, uphill, path. [If] You don't have 4 wheel drive it's very difficult to get up there, I almost got stuck in my pickup, because of the gravel, and conditions of the roadway, which is rutted. The roadway stops, well lets put it this way, the obvious roadway stops, and what I mean by obvious is, is the trails is a well worn path to Mr. Tetreault's residence. Beyond that there is grass and it's not well traveled.
Judge: Well, I think I, the court would like your client to testify to that.
JvS: Oh!
Judge: That's not what he testified to.
JvS: You asked me what he would testify to, so I'd tell I, uh,
Judge: I offered an offer of proof, but fine, but you know. Not like I'm testify that.
JvS: I know Mr. Tetreault is hard of hearing, I'll try to, yell, I'm meaning no disrespect.
Judge: Sir would you, Everybody's been sworn in before? Right? We swear you both in last time you were here in court?
SA: (Shakes head no)
Judge: Okay, I'll just swear you in today. If you'll raise your, both of you raise your right hands. Would you raise your right hand sir? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, so help you God, or do you so affirm that you'll tell the truth?
SA: Yes your honor.
RT: I do.
Clerk: Judge Weber.
Judge: Huh?
Clerk: Um, h  He usually let has a hearing assist upstairs, because he is very hard of hearing, however we don't have the capability down here to help the defendant hear, based on our situation in this courtroom.
Clerk: Just to let you know.
Judge: Okay. If you're going to have to yell, you're going to have to yell, that's what's this, the way it's gotta be.
JvS: Where do you live?
RT: 174 North Lambert Lane.
JvS: And where is your home in relationship to Mr. Andreason's home?
RT: There is no relation.
JvS: Describe to the court, how the homes are situated.
RT: How my home is situated?
JvS: Yes.
RT: On. Well, on the Lambert Lane at the top, well, a mile and a half from the bottom, and my house probably, well facing south, and maybe, to a good 50 feet from the road, facing south.
JvS: Where is uh,  
RT: All gate, all gate and fences all around it.
JvS: Now from the road, it's about a mile and a half from your house?
RT: Uh, b  By the road, yeah about a mile and a half to uh, to   his, where, where he live.
JvS: Where is Mr. Andreason's home in relationship to the road?
RT: Well, he live on Lambert Lane also, but on the beginning right near Lambert Creek.
JvS: Is Lambert Creek the road you referring to?
RT: Well yeah, is close to Lambert Creek. Yeah we live on Lambert Lane, just off Lambert Creek. Is number 33 and number 174. Huh.
JvS: Now, would you normally uh, take, uh   take the road to your house to get to, uh,   Mr. Andreason's home?
RT: Yeah, that's the only road, that's the only road I can use.
JvS: You. What about Mr. Andreas?
RT: He, he don't have, he he don't have to, to go in front of my house. He live in the bottom. He don't have a reason to, to come over for any reason except to go see his friend. But he got another road parallel to it, with nobody live on it. He has a choice, but.
JvS: How often is your road used by other people?
RT: Not many, there's nobody live behind me. Except one of my neighbor, but he live past, past you know, number 202. Uh, but uh,    he don't barely use it. In the winter he can not use it much, because it's pretty rough. And the summer, it varies some time. He use the bottom one most of the time, I don't see him very   very often.
JvS: Very few people use your road?
RT: Very few people. Maybe. The only one been using the road more then often is him, keep driving uh,   his horse to my house.
JvS: Not a vehicle.
RT: No. No. Not a vehicle. Maybe one a month, I got a vehicle go by.
JvS: When Mr. Andreason uh,   brings his horse by uh,   your house, what happens?
RT: On that day. Well. he uh,   Mostly, uh,   he drive on his, uh,   they just drive around. But uh,   on the _bigger?_ day he used to stop at the gate, turn around at the gate. But, I never talk to him. He just past, he's just past. He just, excite, excite, excite my dog by carrying a video camera, and that's what trigger my dog. And bother me also.
JvS: What happens when your dog, what does your dog do when Mr. Andreason comes up to your property?
RT: One sees he can smell it. My dog, uh   he just uh,   I don't know, he just, he just get triggered for what, he been seeing before. He see that lens from his body, and the dog, he just become mad.
JvS: You talking about the lens from his camera?
RT: Yeah. Except him he never bother nobody. He barked, he barked more car, but.
JvS: You say he bothered no,   nobody, are you talking about Mr. Andreason, or are you talking about your dog?
RT: The what?
JvS: Who bothers nobody?
RT: My dog don't bother nobody normally. He's inside. He don't, what happened that time, he just decided to jump. Huh!
JvS: The only person your dog reacts to is Mr. Andreason?
RT: Only, only   person. All the other person he usually walk sometime. He just go to the gate follow them, but that's all.
JvS: Does it bother you that he uh,   films you?
RT: Yeah, it's not, you don't feel sa, I don't know you feel funny when you see somebody with a video camera, and cut everything around. I don't think that's very, you know, nice to live with somebody, uh,   road, use the road with a video.
JvS: Does anybody else do that?
RT: Hmmm?
JvS: Does, anyone, else, do that?
RT: I never see anybody, come over with uh,   any kind of camera or, they,   they don't use my road. Maybe a walker once in a while, you live, I don't know where.
JvS: How many times to your recollection have YOU seen Mr. Andreason uh,   on the road in front of your house with his camera?
RT: How many time?
JvS: How many times?
RT: I don't know. Uh, a  A lot of time I'm not there.
JvS: How many times have You seen him?
RT: Oh maybe, I don't know. I would say, I don't know how many time he been there, but uh,   maybe I saw him 35 to 50 time maybe. If I, If I happen to be in the house. Sometime uh,   I'm gone so.
JvS: Do you feel that Mr. Andreason's actions invade your privacy?
RT: Yes he does. I do believe he does invade my privacy.
JvS: Has uh Mister.   Other than invading your privacy, has Mr. Andreason done anything else uh,   to you?
RT: No uh. Sometime he act funny. Uh, w  When he, when he drive over the machete. And he say, oh I trim the bushes on side of the road. I never called for that so that he can, cut my bushes on the easement road.
JvS: Did uh  
RT: Or just to trigger me, or,   or battering me maybe.
JvS: Have you made any complaints against Mr. Andreason?
RT: No, I never did complain except, the last time when something happen I just, just   get tired of it.
JvS: Has Mr. Andreason to your knowledge, made any complaints against you?
RT: No. I don't remember he put any complain, we have uh,   he didn't put any complain, but on the last report he says, he had a complaint to somebody I guess, but not to me. To my dog one day was barking I, uh,   that was it. I never heard from him, he never send me, A letter, a _land?_ letter, about 3 years ago he send me a letter, to tell me uh,   it's a corporation, and they who live on Curlew Rim Ranch have the right to use that road and so I'm going to use it.
JvS: Do you enjoy your peace and quiet up there?
RT: Yeah I do.
JvS: How far is your closest neighbor?
RT: Well, there is, uh,   a guy past me at 202, who lives, his friend. But I don't see him either.
JvS: How far is that from your house?
RT: Oh maybe, I don't know, uh. Maybe   a quarter mile, maybe three quarter mile, or half a mile from my place, but you have to go, I can not see him from my house.
JvS: Where you live is very remote?
RT: What you mean remote?
JvS: In the middle of nowhere.
RT: Yeah! well. I'm the only one on that side of the hill. I can see down on Lambert Creek. There's nobody else I see. Nobody.
JvS: You're on the top.
RT: On the top. I don't see anybody else around, no houses.
JvS: Have you asked Mr. Andreason to stop uh,   taking his horse by your place?
RT: Well uh,   he guess. I don't know what he got in his mind, he just like to bother somebody I guess. (He he he.) Instead to take a road where nobody use to go wherever he want to go.
JvS: Does anybody else bring?
RT: (covered)
JvS: Does anybody else bring their horses up there, to your place?
RT: A couple years ago they have some neighbor, uh,   they ask me if I don't mind if they, they walk, to see the scenery with their horse. But, they came maybe one time, and after that, they usually leave me alone. They don't bother me.
JvS: No further questions.
Judge: Do you have some questions you'd like to pose to him?
SA: I'm sure I do. (sighs)
Judge: Okay.
SA: Where to begin?
SA: Mr. Tetreault, is it not true that you also have a neighbor up, past you. Two of them. One driving a blue dodge pickup, and another one driving a silver Toyota pickup?
JvS: Can't hear you.
RT: Two other person? What? Why do you ask now? Any older person live?
RT: The only person that walk on that place, only one time, that I saw, one older man, I don't know where he live, he went last year, I never saw him back. He was, a cane and a bag, I don't know. And uh,   he just went by. I didn't talk to him, he just wave at me and, that was it.
SA: Have you ever seen me holding a video camera in my hands?
RT: I saw, some flash when you come in some time, under your new jacket I see a flash on the side of the hip, I can see uh,   a flash over there, when you go by.
SA: I should like to advise the,
Judge: Oh no, you'll have the opportunity to testify.
SA: I have to ask questions first.
Judge: Ask question first.
RT: They don't have no business to cut anything in the easement of my property because, mostly the bushes grow, is wild food for the animal, and I seem it, I like to see wild animal around.
RT: I don't like people cut choke cherry and any kind of bushes on my property.
SA: Fine.
RT: That's wild for the animal.
Judge: Uh ummm.
RT: They are my property and easement.
Judge: Excuse me sir, excuse me, hold it.
SA: That was not a question.
Judge: That was not a question.
SA: I'm sorry your honor.
Judge: Those are only questions.
RT: He came over maybe five six years ago because he had friends living behind, before uh,   Coatsworth move in. At that time I saw him, but mostly when he go he use the bottom road.
SA: I don't believe I have other questions for him at this time your honor.
Judge: Okay. Any redirect?
JvS: Uh no.
Judge: Okay. Does petitioner rest at this time council?
JvS: No! I'd like to call Mr. Andreason as an adverse witness.
Judge: Okay. He's already been sworn. He has the opportunity to ask you questions sir.
SA: Uh hm.
JvS: You do take a video camera up there, correct? with you.
SA: I do have a small camera, that is only 1/8 of an inch wide at the lens. On my helmet. I am taking the camera with me now days, because of events, over the past several years. Where I have been threatened, and I now seek to gain evidence that the events are in fact happening.
JvS: Do these, Is your camera have a sound card on it?
SA: It has a microphone.
JvS: So it can pick up uh,   what Mr. Tetreault says?
SA: Yes.
JvS: And it can pick up what you say?
SA: Yes.
JvS: Are you aware is it illegal to uh,   capture Mr. Tetreault's conversations without his express permission?
SA: I am under the understanding that as long as it is something that I am seeing, and if I'm in a public place, it is legal. Also if I am, uh,   It does not require the other person's permission under conditions that I am under, I uh,   I'm not, list those exactly right now.
JvS: Are you familiar with uh,   RCW 9 7 3 0 3 0?
SA: Please repeat 9?
JvS: 9.73.030?
SA: No I do not.
JvS: It's titled Intercepting Recording or Divulging Private Communication Consent Required, and Exceptions.
SA: Okay. I don't I believe that applies in this case when I am getting evidence that a crime is being occurred.
Judge: Mr. Andreason, hold it a second. Mr. Andreason. When council is asking you about specific statues and you have no knowledge of them, or you say you have no knowledge of them. And. Would you feel more comfortable if you had an attorney present today? I mean, he's got an attorney. I want to be fair.
SA: Yeah, it would be more fair your honor, yes.
Judge: Okay. I'm going to hold it up right, at this point, and, it's not something I do lightly. I don't want anybody to feel they have been taken advantage of, in any way, fashion, shape, or form. So if there's an attorney, that you want to retain to represent you in this matter, then I will certainly allow that to happen. We'll just to set it off to the next date I'm here. That'll be,
SA: Even though I had all this prepared to, answer, most of what I've, already heard.
Judge: I understand that, but it's your decision sir.
SA: I don't know if this would revolve around the camera issue.
Judge: Well.
SA: Maybe that's, something I need to look into.
Judge: They're presenting testimony that you've violated somehow, violated the law, by. And there's a statute, I've read it in recent times and. Mr. Von Sauer I'm sure, would give you a copy of it to look at it, if you want it. Spend a few moments doing that before we continue on, but I just. My concern is I want to be fair. And I don't want to see you get walked into some trap. So to speak.
SA: Right.
Judge: And that's up to you. If you want to go ahead and proceed, you have the right to do so.
SA: I don't have the proper RCW to counter, this.
Judge: Well. Public place exception, I don't think applies to statue. _Easily? Usery?_, I'll tell you that, so that's might be an exception, but it doesn't apply. There is a law, basically, that says you can't record people. But, your attorney and you together might be able to find an exception to that, and explain it to me. You see where I'm coming from.
SA: Yes.
Judge: Because, it does have a bearing, what he's basically saying, you know,
SA: Yes it has a bearing on his case.
Judge: Yep. So. It's your decision sir. You want to take a few moments to think about it?
SA: Uh, w  Would. What I'd like to do is continue this until next month.
Judge: That's what we'll have to do.
SA: Yes.
Judge: You want to continue it until next month.
SA: Yes.
Judge: Not really but, I will think so. Okay. You understand Mr. Von Sauer, I'm sure.
JvS: Of course.
Judge: We want to be fair. So, it's not that I don't find this case very interesting, uh,   you know. But uh,   I do want to, make sure I, treat it with the gravity, that it is warranted. Okay?
JvS: When next month?
Judge: Next month would be, June 10th, I believe.
JvS: Also 9:30.
Judge: 9:30. And, you know, with the expectation, you folks might be a little later than 9:30 like, today has been, simply, because we have to take the criminal docket first.
JvS: Of course.
Judge: Okay?
JvS: Thank you.

Judge: Before we go any further, I need a yellow pad. A legal pad.
Judge: This is a matter of District court, Ferry County District Court cause # CVH-13-05 Ronald J. Tetreault vs. Stewart E. Andreason. Are you ready to proceed folks?
JvS: Ah,   Yes your honor.
SA: Yes your honor.
Judge: Okie dokie.
Judge: I think last time we were at a juncture, where Mr. Andreason was carrying, starting to carry the ball.
JvS: No your honor, he was in my case of chief.
Judge: Oh was he in your case of chief?
JvS: Yes I called him as an adverse witness.
Judge: Okay.
JvS: And before we get started ah,,  I'd like ah,   make a motion ah,   to strike the, recently filed documents. The matter was continued so Mr. Andreason could find an attorney, and appear with an attorney, he chose not to do so. There was no order allowing him in the middle of the trial, to re-brief his case, or to supply supplemental, ah,   briefing. Although I, recognize that he certainly could add points of authority at any time to support his legal argument, he did choose to use the State vs. Smith, however in his quote, and I did read the case, that case is strictly limited to it's facts, and those facts aren't here. We are not in a criminal murder investigation, and the, tapes and issues don't contain screams, foot prints, ah,   foot steps, gunshots, or that sort of thing. So it's ah,   his citation of Smith vs. a mistake, State vs. Smith is irrelevant. All the documents submitted are hearsay. uh,   The purported statement of Mr. Andreason on the Republic, uh,   in the Ferry County Sheriff's Voluntary Statement is one, not certified, and two, not signed. Uh, a  And I doubt those statements even were presented to the Sheriff's office, but without the certification, they rank hearsay, and have absolutely no legal merit.
JvS: Thank you.
Judge: You're welcome. First off, in response to what your argument is, I uh,   what I suspect what you're saying is... Are we talking about this packet that starts off, Sorted by claims.
JvS: I believe the packet I'm referring to is filed, uh,
Judge: I'm sorry, Excuse me. This, this exhibit over here. Um. Twenty-one. One through twenty one exhibits. Is that what you're saying? Is that what you're arguing against?
JvS: Um,   I only have. I don't have a one through twenty one exhibits.
Judge: Okay, how about let's start off with, what's been marked, at least on my packet, it's been marked as defense exhibit D-1. It goes through,
SA: Your honor, the packet I gave to Mr. Von Sauer, was not labeled by the clerk.
Clerk: That is correct.
SA: But it is identical content.
Judge: Okay so. It's a declaration of, let's call the first one Declaration of Easements, Special Covenants and Provisions? And the last page, I believe is a photograph of a horse.
JvS: The ears of a horse.
Judge: The ears of a horse, well,
SA: Focusing on the road, the bushes in question.
Judge: Okay. These have not been offered into evidence at this point in time, all they are is exhibits. He's denoted them as exhibits. When it comes time for him to offer, if he's going to, into evidence in this case, then uh,   I feel that he has, whatever term we gave him, time I gave him, was for him to acquire an attorney, I certainly didn't stop him in any shape or form, of providing additional information. If he can substantiate each one of these, then, it's a question as to whether they should come in or not.
JvS: Well, I can certainly argue that, I just think that,
Judge: You can argue at that point in time. Okay.
Judge: So, you had him under oath. You were under oath previously sir. You remain under oath. Your, your   witness still. You're case in chief, you were asking him. You want to come forward and sit up here?
Judge: Your witness.
JvS: The name on this road uh,   which you are traveling is called North Lambert Lane?
SA: Correct.
JvS: And uh,   North Lambert Lane, not only goes through Mr. Tetreault's property, but it also goes through other people's property?
SA: Yes.
JvS: And uh,   to get to your friend, uh,   Scotty's house, there are two ways you can go using North Lambert Creek, I mean North Lambert   Lane, isn't that correct?
SA: There are two paths.
JvS: And there's one on the bottom, and one on the top.
SA: I agree with that.
JvS: And uh,   Let me direct your attention to this photograph, and I'll have it marked for identification as plaintiff's 1.  
Clerk: Description..... Photograph..... (indistinct) These are the same aren't they?
JvS: (indistinct)
JvS: Yeah, there were three.
Clerk: (indistinct)
JvS: Direct your attention to plaintiff's 3. Do you recognize, uh,   the photograph as depicting part of North Lambert Lane?
SA: Yes I do.
JvS: And where is that?
SA: In front of Ron's property at his gate, looking west.
JvS: And there's a well worn path leading, leading   directly to his gate?
SA: Yes.
JvS: Introduce it as plaintiff's exhibit three.
Judge: Do you have any objection to the admission of this document?
SA: It looks fine.
Judge: Are you saying you do not, then?
SA: No objection your honor.
Judge: Okay.
JvS: Directing your attention to what's been marked plaintiff's 2. Do you recognize that part?
SA: Yes, this is also North Lambert Lane, looking North-north-east.
JvS: That's away from the driveway?
SA: Away from the driveway.
JvS: Okay to introduce plaintiff's two into evidence.
Judge: Any objection to that?
SA: No objection your honor.
Judge: Okay.
JvS: Are you familiar with uh,   all aspects of uh,   North Lambert Lane?
SA: I doubt anybody could be familiar with All aspects, but I do, believe that I, have a good understanding of, it's aspects.
JvS: You've traveled on, all parts of North Lambert Lane?
SA: Yes I have.
JvS: And uh,   is there any signs,   signage on North Lambert Lane, other than North Lambert Lane?
SA: On the lane other than the lane, pardon?
JvS: Well, other the road sign, that says North Lambert Lane.
SA: There are signs all over, the county, everywhere, on every county road, every private road, there are signs. Which signs are you referring to?
JvS: Any that you can recall that are on North Lambert Lane.
SA: You want me to recall what signs I've seen. Real estate signs for sale, signs marking names of the roads, no trespassing here, no trespassing there, private road, private driveway. Um, t  There's also a sign that says.... what did it say? Oh what did it say? There is one other sign that I, can't quite remember, something to the effect of, caution, slippery road ahead, very risky, that's what it said. Quote "very risky."
JvS: And where is, where is that sign located?
SA: Um,   On the north side of the ridge, about 260 North Lambert Lane.
JvS: Is that before or after, uh   Mr. Tetreault's home?
SA: After, from my point of view.
JvS: Your point of view is coming up from?
SA: From the south.
JvS: You see any signs that mark this as a bridle path?
SA: No. The nearest horse sign is at the beginning of the road along the highway.
JvS: What highway?
SA: State Route 21, at the intersection of Lambert Creek Road, there's a sign indicating horse trails up at the Lambert Creek trail-head.
JvS: And where is the Lambert Creek trail-head?
SA: Seven miles up Lambert Creek. Southwest by 5 miles, from my location, residence.
JvS: And that's staying on Lambert Creek Road from State route 21 going directly, uh   east, right?
SA: Southeast. Yes.
JvS: Those signs are not on Lambert Lane, is that correct?
SA: The signs that I mentioned are, except for the horse sign.
JvS: Have you seen any survey stakes on North Lambert Lane?
SA: There are lots of survey stakes, brass, and other coins, or unmarked brass. None of the on the lane.
JvS: Have you seen any Surveys of North Lambert Lane?
SA: Yes I have.
JvS: Just the road?
SA: Just the road.
JvS: And where are those?
SA: I have one with me. Would you like me to, enter it as an exhibit from my side?
JvS: Just show it.
SA: Just show it.
SA: Beyond the plat map of course.
SA: Because the plat map doesn't show that road.
JvS: So you commissioned this survey?
SA: My dad commissioned it a couple years ago.
JvS: July 13, 2010?
SA: Correct.
JvS: Now this uh,   portion of the uh,   survey only deals with uh,   lots uh,   21 through 24, 37 through uh,   41, uh,   30 through 36, and lots 37 west and 37 east, and the Edward Starr short plat. Is that correct?
SA: That is correct.
JvS: These uh,   this survey uh,   has nothing to do with Mr. Tetreault's place, is that correct?
SA: No, but he uses the road, and you asked if I've seen any surveys of North Lambert Lane.
JvS: Now have you seen any surveys of North Lambert Lane, uh,   for the years 1967 through 1974?
SA: That would be the plat, for the division. Correct?
JvS: Well I don't know. I'm asking you.
SA: I have seen Division one plat map and the division three plat map.
JvS: Other than those, you've never seen a survey of North Lambert Lane.
SA: No. We can find none has been done.
JvS: Now you mentioned in your documents uh,   a deed or legal description from the William's. Do you recall that?
SA: Yes.
JvS: In that uh,   declaration of easements, covenants, and special provisions which uh,   you've mentioned in your papers. It states uh,   "the reciprocal easements herein declared granted and reserved shall be limited to a width of thirty feet of either side of the center, of the line and shall by survey and appropriate markers be located on the land and shall be described for the record by supplemental declaration, by Richard F. Williams, and, Jeanette Williams his wife, their successors and assigns, within five years of the date hereof, said easements shall be and are hereby limited to such as are located and recorded within that period." Did you read that?
SA: Yes I did.
JvS: And you weren't, able to find uh,   any surveys during that particular period of time by uh,   Mr. Williams uh,   or Richard F. Williams, did you?
SA: No.
JvS: Um, t  The first part of that uh,   declaration of easements and covenants and special provisions, states uh,   "For a valuable consideration the undersigned grantors, Richard F. Williams and Jeanette Williams his wife, hereby declare give grant and reserve for the reciprocal benefit of all the said lands, as the same are or here in after separated and divided in ownership, easements appurtenant to, and running with said lands for roadways, ingress, egress, as now existing or hereafter established, as hereinafter set forth by the grantors, under and across said lands for the installation maintenance service repair, of electric powerlines, telephone lines, water lines, gas lines, riding trails, or other utilities over and across said land." By your understanding of that deed is that there was no uh,   survey or dedication by appropriate markers, located the land, that no easements were actually granted by this document.
SA: I do not agree with that.
JvS: So you,  
SA: That would suggest that there are no easements, and nobody can get to any property without first having it surveyed.
JvS: Why did you uh,   put this document uh,   as part of your exhibits if it is meaningless?
SA: It's not meaningless, it shows the intent of the developers to show ingress and egress rights to every property owner.
JvS: Well this is not signed by the developers. This is signed by Richard F. Williams and Jeanette Williams. Isn't that correct?
SA: Correct. JvS: And it says if they haven't done it within five years of the date, thereof, and this is dated June 30th, 1969. Which would make the final five year date 1990 uh,   1974, this has no meaning.
SA: Are you suggesting every single property, all 100 lots up there, have no easement and no rights to ingress egress.
JvS: I'm suggesting your document, is meaningless, for this purpose.
SA: Okay, perhaps that part of the document is meaningless in that regard.
JvS: You claim that uh,   you have the right to uh,,  
Judge: Excuse me just a second, excuse me a second. Gentlemen since you're both reading from something, in you have in hand,
SA: Exhibit 1.
Judge: Exhibit one I have dated, this 30 day of June, 1969. I'm going to admit that into the record, for whatever purpose you two folks are going to argue about it.
JvS: That's fine your honor.
Judge: Okay. So I'm going to check that as being admitted.
JvS: And how, how is your one in it?
Judge: Is there any other conversation about any other documents that I, so far?
JvS: No. That's the document I've been talking about.
SA: The next two exh-uh, next two   pages you're now looking at, are, the other pages within the same filing.
Judge: I guess I'm, I'm not understanding _the_ sees is, yeah, that's, ,  these are part and parcel actually of the prior document. Right?
JvS: Yes, the uh,
Judge: The number one. Okay. So I'm going to admit those two, also. For whatever purpose.
SA: Okay.
JvS: Uh, d  Do we have a designation for those documents?
Judge: That would be two and three.
JvS: plaintiff's, Defendant's, Court's?
Judge: Two is Schedule A, Legal Description. Three is, uh,
SA: Clean copy of the same document.
Judge: Uh so,
JvS: It's not part of the documentary, it's just a,
SA: It's a clean copy so you can read it.
Judge: Yeah, Let's, let's don't admit two then, because two is something we can't even see. Okay?
SA: Okay.
Judge: It's the same document. Three's the same document as two, it's just something we can read, right?
SA: Yes it is.
Judge: Okay.
SA: I was being complete.
Judge: Okay. I'm going to admit that document. Okay.
JvS: So we can refer to them as? Two?
Judge: No. D-1 and D-3 are admitted. D-2 is not admitted.
JvS: Okay.
Judge: Save my eyesight.
SA: Certainly.
Judge: Okay. I'm sorry Mr. Von Sauer, go ahead.
JvS: I lost my train of thought there but uh,   I'll move on if I can remember it. Um.  
Judge: Since I interject myself into this uh,   go ahead and take your time, think about   what you were talking about. I think your point was no surveys.
JvS: Ah, No surveys, no dedication, no markers. Oh! all right. Um,   Now you claim you have the right to uh,   ride your horse up on uh,   the easement for ingress and egress, uh,   because you're visiting your friend Mr. Scotty Coatsworth, is that correct?
SA: Correct.
JvS: Where did you get that idea?
SA: That seems to me, to be a common, knowledge courtesy that a person can visit another person, no matter where they live.
Judge: Can I have the spelling of Mr. Scott's last name?
JvS: Coatsworth. C O A T S W. Coats worthy, W O R T H Y.
SA: No Y.
JvS: No Y. Coatsworth. All right.
Judge: Okay. Go ahead.
JvS: Now you indicate that uh,   well actually in referring to plaintiff's, uh   one and three. Uh,   North Lambert Lane is a, one lane dirt road.
SA: Yes.
JvS: And it's to be used for entering and exiting, property. Is that correct?
SA: Yes.
JvS: Can you explain to the court HOW, one who is USING the road for that purpose, can get around Your Horse?
SA: There are occasional wide spots in the road, but I don't expect people to use, just them. I expect them to slow down and let me move out of the way before charging through.
JvS: Does your horse BLOCK through traffic.
SA: Only when she's acting up.
JvS: What do you mean acting up?
SA: Well she is not a machine, she has a mind of her own, she can, refuse to cooperate.
JvS: Do you ever ride off the uh,   side of the road?
SA: I do. I've also stepped in ditches, and sank in, I've stepped in barbed wire, and on glass from beer bottles that get thrown out across the roads. So there are,
JvS: And these are,
SA: There are reasons that I try to stay, on the roads. I don't go riding off anywhere on open land.
JvS: So your general habit is to ride, in the roadways, is that correct?
SA: Yes it is.
JvS: All right. And uh,   you'll do that uh,   rainy, rain, snow, shine?
SA: I've done all those. All the way down to 6 degrees, looking for the neighbor's goat.
JvS: Let's uh, take the snow. Well strike that. Let me...   Part of North Lambert Lane goes, up hill at a fairly steep grade, is that correct?
SA: Oh yes.
JvS: And the road of course being dirt uh,   sometimes that dirt's washed away and leaves rock, is that correct?
SA: Yes it does. Round rock too.
JvS: What was that?
SA: Round rock.
JvS: Okay. Uh, h  Have you ever uh,   tried to drive uh,   through that round rock in the snow?
SA: Not in the snow, no.
JvS: Do you drive at all in the snow?
SA: Yes.
JvS: Uh.   In the snow any sudden movements are uh,   very dangerous aren't they?
SA: Yes.
JvS: And uh,   slamming your brakes on in the snow is dangerous,
SA: Yes.
JvS: Turning in the snow could be dangerous.
SA: Yes.
JvS: Directing your attention to uh,   plaintiff's uh,   P-1. Do you recognize that of course do you?
SA: Yes.
JvS: And uh,   there's a fence in there, correct?
SA: Yes.
JvS: How long has that fence been there?
SA: Since before I moved here, which would be eleven years. I believe Mr. Tetreault put it in when he moved here.
JvS: Move to admit plaintiff's P-1.
Judge: Okay. Any objection?
SA: No objection. You already seen it once, I believe.
Judge: Yeah, we've already had that dance through there, haven't we.
Clerk: Judge Weber (indistinct)  
JvS: How long has Mr. Tetreault had his dogs?
SA: This dog, I believe three or four years. There was a different dog before that. And the other one I don't know.
JvS: Now, when did you First, begin experiencing problems with the dog?
SA: With the black and white dog? three years ago.
JvS: Was it a puppy then?
SA: No. It was already a grown male.
JvS: Now when you go by Mr. Tetreault's property on the uh,   North Lambert Lane. How long does it take you to traverse his property?
SA: Only a few minutes.
JvS: The whole ten acres?
SA: The whole ten acre. Well, it goes off of the property, and back around the corner and back up and across the corner of his property. The whole property. I'd have to say five minutes. At most.
JvS: Is that at a walk, or a trot?
SA: I like to walk, because of my, uh,   other condition. Trotting, jars my head, it, hurts like a concussion. Bruising. I prefer to walk.
JvS: And Mr., You and, well strike that.   Do you think the dog recognizes you? or the horse? or both?
SA: I can't tell. Except for the, okay. Hold on a second. Let me think. When I rode a different horse, the dog still barks at me, as does every other two dozen dogs up and down the road. I would say the dog is barking at any horse, whether it's me or not? I would have to say, it's probably not just me, because other people the dog barks at.
JvS: And how do you know that?
SA: Other people have told me the dog barks at them.
JvS: Have you seen, have YOU seen the dog bark at any other horses?
SA: No. I couldn't be there, I could not be there otherwise.
JvS: Now, You could get to your friend Scotty's house by using the lower loop of uh,   North Lambert Lane, is that correct?
SA: That's not North Lambert Lane on the lower, on the bottom.
JvS: It's not?
SA: No.
JvS: Aren't there signs that say North Lambert Lane?
SA: On the upper road yes.
JvS: On the bottom road.
SA: On the bottom road, no.
JvS: What is the sign for that road?
SA: Kingfisher, and Upper Happy Valley Road.
JvS: And Kingfisher goes uh,   towards the,
SA: East.
JvS: East.
SA: Along the bottom.
JvS: And then, Upper Valley goes north?
SA: Northeast.
JvS: When you take the lower road, route, do you take Upper Valley Road, or what is that,
SA: Upper Happy Valley Road yes. Those, two you have to take together. There's no other way off to the side.
JvS: And that runs into North Lambert Lane?
SA: Yes it does.
JvS: And uh,   and then taking North Lambert Lane further up you run across your, buddy, Scotty uh,   Coatsworth place?
SA: Yes.
JvS: Why don't you use that road to get to your buddy's house?
SA: Because it's not always the best road.
JvS: What do you mean by, not always The best?
SA: In the winter for example, I would never take the steep one, when it's, when it's icy and snowy. Also there's a cliff up the side and down the other side, it's narrow. It's very dangerous. Also when my horse rides down that steep cliff, it's extra bouncing on me, and it's also hard on her, because she's getting older and she jigs when she gets to the bottom.
JvS: Now North Lambert Lane has a very steep incline coming from the uh,   bottom of the hill, up to where uh,   Mr. Tetreault lives. Is that correct?
SA: Yes it also has a steep spot, but it's not as steep, and not as narrow.
JvS: How many other people, other than uh,   Scotty uh,   Coatsworth, do you know who live on North Lambert Lane.
SA: What do you define as, that I know?
JvS: Uh, t  That you know their identity,
SA: That I know of? or that are friends of?
JvS: That I know. Friends.
SA: That I know of? One, two, three, four, plus five and six that are occasional, plus seven which is off, just above me.
JvS: And uh,   do you know if any of those individuals, uh,   regularly visit, Mr. Tetreault?
SA: I doubt they visit, Mr. Tetreault, but I do not know of that, because I do not, see, that.
JvS: Therefore, as far as you know, um,   all the track marks leading to Mr. Tetreault's home, were done by Mr. Tetreault?
SA: No. That's incorrect.
JvS: Who else made those track marks?
SA: The ones that live past him.
JvS: Well.
SA: Do you want me to name names, or lot numbers?
JvS: No. I want you to explain on uh,   exhibit two, who else made those, sorry.  
SA: Definitely three other people. Have to go past,
JvS: Directing your attention to plaintiff's One.
SA: Yes.
JvS: Talking about the tracks that go right in to Mr. Tetreault's home. How many people you know made those tracks?
SA: I wouldn't know of any other people. I have seen vehicles like carrying wood to his place, but I don't know any names, or who his friends are.
JvS: But they were going to see Mr. Tetreault.
SA: Yes, those.
JvS: That's the point.
JvS: Now according to your, statements er, ,  you've been to Mr. Tetreault's place over the last 9 years maybe 96 times? Or is it a shorter period?
SA: Over nine years, I've gone past his place, I could pull out my chart, an exact number, it's close to that yes, but I would not say that I've gone To his place. Those have all been Past it, outside his gate. There's perhaps been one time that I remember stopping at the gate, to try to talk to him.
JvS: Mr. Tetreault?
SA: Yes. But I did not go inside the gate.
JvS: And uh,   On all these occasions you've only talked to him once, is that correct?
SA: In that manner yes. When I was seeking to talk to him, to clarify.
JvS: Oh. So all the other times you weren't seeking to talk to him?
SA: Correct.
JvS: But you did have a conversation with him?
SA: I have had one other conversation with him yes.
JvS: You had a total of two conversations with him?
SA: Definitely.
JvS: And uh,   what were the subject matters of those conversations?
SA: The first one I was, distributing tracts. And the second conversation was when he threatened me.
JvS: Now, you say the fence surrounding Mr. Tetreault's property is Not six feet tall?
SA: At the time that I said that, correct! I have not seen his fence, since then to, gauge whether or not it is, of any distance,   of any height to keep the dog in. I haven't seen that myself yet.
JvS: Now, you didn't move to, where you live, as your own volition, did you?
SA: I choose to come here for, various reasons. I would consider that my own volition.
JvS: Uh, l  Let me try that, do that, You didn't buy your home there did you?
SA: I was involved in choosing it, and my dad bought it.
JvS: Did you build it?
SA: I did help build it.
JvS: Did you have neighbors?
SA: I have neighbors. They did not help.
JvS: How many neighbors, have you got? I mean, Right in the close vicinity to where you live.
SA: I would say four, ,  within 600 feet.
JvS: Within 600 feet, how many neighbors does Mr. Tetreault have?
SA: Zero. Ummm, hold on a second. It might be a little more than 600 feet away, but there is a building on the lot next door.
JvS: Are you talking about the Holmes residence?
SA: No. Holmes is around the corner. That's too far away for me to call, close neighbor. I would say, the Green, residence on lot 62, and also Mr. Gilbert on lot 60. But that's a little farther away than I, than   600.
JvS: Standing from the gate in front of Mr. Tetreault's home, can you see, the residence of lot 62?
SA: I believe so, unless there's a tree or rock obscuring it it's, fairly close though. Within view I mean, if it was, uh. I don't remember exactly.
JvS: You say you keep meticulous and detailed logs of where you ride.
SA: Yes I do.
JvS: Why?
SA: Because I like to keep details. I can look back in the records at a future time, and determine where I've gone, how far I've gone, what my accomplishments are.
JvS: And,  
SA: Is it just like a 4-H kid, that keeps track of how many hours they work with their project.
JvS: Now, your log reflects whether Ron Tetreault is home or not? Isn't that correct?
SA: Not until he threatened me, Then I started writing him down, to keep track of whether or not I bothered him.
JvS: Well. If that's true, why did you make this statement: 'Over the entire record of 9.6 years, I have rode past, Ron's, 89 times on 73 days, of which only 40% of the time I recorded Ron was home.'
SA: I said that.
JvS: Yes you did.
SA: Starting in 2010,
Judge: Um,   What are you reading from?
JvS: Oh, I'm reading from his uh,   filing of April 5th, 2013. It's number 13 of his paragraphs.
Judge: And the exhibit number on that is? Do you, You don't have an exhibit number huh?
JvS: I don't have an exhibit number your honor.
Judge: Okay hold it a sec.
SA: If it's a response it's not an exhibit.  
Judge: That would be response number two?
SA: Correct.  
JvS: No. One.
SA: Oh, One?  
JvS: It's April 5th 2013.
SA: I'm corrected.
Judge: Oh, let's see. Okay. Paragraph 13. Yeah. Go ahead, let me follow.
JvS: Okay. In paragraph 14 of the same response, you complain that uh,   Mr. Tetreault is refusing to yield to your horse on the roadway. Is that correct?
SA: Correct.
JvS: And uh,   Why should he yield to your horse?
SA: One. It one of, Law to not run over pedestrians, and horses. Second, because I need to get out of his way first.
JvS: Where's the law saying no running over horses?
SA: I'm sure it's in RCW 47 um dot something.
JvS: You don't have that with you do you?
SA: No, I don't have that with me.
JvS: Now, why should Mr. Tetreault yield to you, when you admit that that road is dangerous to uh,   put on the brakes, to swerve, to make sudden movements, especially during the snow?
SA: You're asking whether or not I should stay home during the winter.
JvS: Well, that... You can say that, yeah.
SA: I would expect other drivers to drive in a manner that is not reckless. Not speeding too fast for conditions, because they might have to stop.
JvS: Isn't your presence, in the center of the road, on a horse, reckless?
SA: Would you prefer I drive a vehicle?
JvS: That would be what roads for egress and ingress are used for.
SA: My choice of vehicle is not, should not be something that he gets to determine.
JvS: Oh? He should be able to ride a stage, You should be able to ride a stage coach up and down this one lane road, uh   for egress and ingress?
SA: I would never drive a stage coach up that road, however the, but   my neighbor next door is riding a 2-wheel cart with her draft horse.
JvS: Does that make it right?
SA: I believe it is covered under the law, that it is, allowed. It's a slow moving vehicle, and as long as it's properly marked, it's legal.
JvS: And uh,   you can cite a RCW to that effect?
SA: I might be able to find it.
JvS: You don't have one here today, do you?
SA: No. I wasn't anticipating that question. But I do not consider it to ride a horse.
JvS: In the center of a roadway? That's okay?
SA: If it's a one lane road, it's okay to be in the center. If it's a two lane road, no I do not ride in the center.
JvS: Where do you ride on a two lane road?
SA: On the side.
JvS: The side of the road, out of,   out of the lanes?
SA: As much as possible, yes.
JvS: But you choose not to do that on a one lane road?
SA: I'm all over the road in that regard.
JvS: Do you ride on the freeway at all? (covered) 
SA: If there are bushes on the side, and ditches, I don't ride on the margin.
JvS: Do you ride on the freeway?
SA: Never.
JvS: Ride on the state highway?
SA: Never.
JvS: Why?
SA: Because that would be reckless. I can not expect traffic to, avoid me.
JvS: But on a one lane road, you expect them to do that?
SA: Yes. Especially where the speed limit is 20. There should be no problem slowing down and stopping, on a rural road.
JvS: Where on North Lambert Lane is a speed limit sign?
SA: There has not been placed one.
JvS: Thank you.
SA: There was a suggestion of a speed limit in a previous case.
JvS: Now, it says, 'If I were swinging a machete it would show in the videos, I would have to dismount to reach the dog.' Well, explain how, you can video, uh,   use your video, hold on to the horse, and uh,   have a machete.
SA: I don't think I could. That's the point.
JvS: Exactly.
SA: Correction. Clarify that. Because there is, there is a way that that could be a different answer.
JvS: Well you need to clarify your answer.
SA: What was the question again please.
JvS: How can you uh,   swing a machete, operate your video, and hold your horse?
SA: I could almost answer that differently. But swinging a machete, No I could not.
JvS: So it's no surprise to you why there's no videos.
SA: Okay. I'm going to correct it. When I had Cowgirl, I did not need hands to control her. I trained her up to Parelli level three, and I did use my tree saw to trim branches along the road. One hand on the branch, the other hand on the tree saw. In there, Under that condition, that would be a different answer to my first one. I have not yet been able to train Rowan to hold still, that long.
JvS: Now how many people, on North Lambert Lane, have threatened you?
SA: Only one.
JvS: So the only time,
SA: Two,
  Two! There have been others from my other neighbor to the west. I'd have to say two.
JvS: To the west. Are you talking about Lambert Creek Road?
SA: No. North Lambert Lane.
JvS: You say 'I turned on my camera every time I cross property lines of people who have threatened me.' That means that uh,   you turn your camera only when you get over to Mr. Tetreault and this other person to the west, property.
SA: Yes.
JvS: So you single Mr. Tetreault as, one of the people you keep surveillance on, correct?
SA: Correct.
JvS: Now you state, 'Worse yet, when a neighbor next door started target practicing on March 29th at, at 14:50, at the sound of the first gunshot in many months, Rowan bolted out of the shelter, busting the fence and handle and webbing, webbing buckle.' Mr. Tetreault ever shoot at you?
SA: No.
JvS: Is this the only action that you've, oi strike, i  Is this the only action you've been involved with Mr. Tetreault?
SA: Define action.
JvS: Lawsuit.
SA: Oh yeah. I've not seen the court room, the inside of a court room until, this, except for one jury duty, selection.
JvS: No further questions.
Judge: Somewhat awkward, but Mr. Tetreault, or Mr., Anderson, you have the opportunity since you, are the responding party in this particular action, to ask yourself questions, regarding anything that he brought up, that you want to talk about. But, the process is, you have, pose a question to yourself, and then you answer. And you clearly identify.
SA: I understand that.
Judge: the situation. Okay, you understand it?
SA: I understand that.
Judge: Okay. So at this time if you want to say something in response to His, or ask questions in response to his questions, go ahead. You can also though, you could save it until such time as you, you put your case on in chief, but, go ahead and, lets simplify and keep it right now.
SA: No further questions at this time your honor.
Judge: Okay. No further questions.
JvS: I want to recall uh,   Mr. Tetreault.
Judge: Okay. Probably what we need to do is, he's hooked up there, and he can hear questions, I assume. Can you hear the questions?
RT: Yes.
Judge: Okay. Why don't we just leave him down there, so we, don't have to go back and forth. You want to have a seat down here?
Clerk: Judge Weber.
Judge: Yeah?
Clerk: He can hear same clear from over there, it goes with him.
Judge: Oh does it go with you?
Clerk: Yeah.
Judge: Yeah. Well then why don't you, have the opportunity to come up here, sit in this chair too?
JvS: Mr. Tetreault, um,   You heard the testimony of Mr. Andreason?
RT: Yes sir.
JvS: Um.   Your closest neighbor is more than 600 feet away, correct?
RT: Hmmm, yeah, nothin that close.
JvS: Is there a reason, that you uh,   don't have any close neighbors, that uh, that well strike that.   Do you prefer having neighbors?
RT: No. That's why I bought or there, so I can be in peace an, just relax because, with my, hard hearing, and my eyes, I just like to get away from people, so I don't bother them, and I don't my dog to let me know when they come in or he see them. That's the reason.
JvS: So you value your privacy?
RT: Yes.
JvS: When your ug, dog uh,   starts barking, when Mr. Andreason comes uh,   by your house. What does that do to you?
RT: Well, he don't used to bark in the beginning when he used to carry, no Video camera. But what happened, that video camera, I saw the glare, and my dog saw it too. And my dog feel like is watching. Is my guard dog. He protect me, to let me know.
JvS: And when he let's you know, uh   by barking?
RT: Yep. So I look around, who's coming?
JvS: Uh.   When your dog barks at Mr. Andreason, does that affect you?
RT: Well, it upset me.
JvS: And, can you explain how it upset you?
RT: Because, I have a feeling, my dog, he sees something is not right, and is letting me know, is something wrong, when he see him coming. He don't do it to anybody else. He bark about _ed_wd_ actually everybody, but he is, in his def_ friendly. Is something attract him, to make him bark.
JvS: Describe um,   to the court um,   how Mr. Andreason Travels with his horse across your property.
RT: Well, it. Equal when he travel, he travel, just with the horse some time he come back from the other side. He trick me sometime, now I don't have my dog don't, caught him before he get close to me. He just play wid a game to see his friend from one side, or the other side. So he travels the other road on one way come back from the other way.
JvS: In your opinion, which road is steeper? The one from uh,   the bottom, directly to your house, North Lambert Creek Road, or the one going through Kingfisher and Happy Valley?
RT: I been driving both road and I don't see much more difference.
JvS: And are both roads one lane, dirt roads.
RT: Yep, that right, one lane.
JvS: Do you get aggravated when your dog gets aggravated?
RT: Uh, kind of.   Kind of, yeah, I just don't like it, when he get excited.
JvS: How does that affect you?
RT: I don't know. He he.   He just, uh,   know when it's only people that travel with a horse, I know it's him, and that's, that's aggravating it. He can have no business to be there.
JvS: Have you ever seen Mr. Andreason drive a vehicle?
RT: No.
JvS: Have you asked Mr. Andreason not to come by your house?
RT: I asked him one time when we had an argument, I told him, 'Why you come over here for?' He said 'A road is a road.'
JvS: Does the fact that Mr. Andreason uses a horse on your dirt road, cause any problems?
RT: Not really or, hm. ,  He can not damage the road except, leaving a pile of trash once in a while, but it's okay. Heh.
JvS: Does the manure cause you any problems?
RT: No. Sometime when he do it in front of the gate, well it disgusting but.
JvS: What about flies?
RT: No, not really. He don't get close to my, my door.
JvS: No further questions.
Judge: Have any of the questions that been asked, prompt you for a question you'd like to ask of this gentlemen?
SA: Yes your honor.
Judge: Okay, go ahead.
SA: Mr. Tetreault, did, how do you train a dog to respond to a camera?
JvS: Objection, goes beyond direct.
SA: Beyond direct. Have you trained your dog to ...
Judge: No, I, I think he can answer the question if he likes. Go ahead.
SA: Have you trained your dog to, bark, extra at people with cameras.
RT: Nope. A dog is a normal dog. When he see somebody he bark. But especially, when he aggravated is because he get lens of camera look at him. Just like I see it myself. I know what the feel.
SA: Does the dog responding to me because I wear glasses?
RT: No. He just whatever you Hide on your body.
SA: So the dog is only responding to what's hidden?
RT: Well is a glare. Is not like a pair of glasses. A camera is a glare not like your glasses. A dog know different than a glass, animal.
SA: Your honor, I could show you the camera I used, and it has no glare.
Judge: No, Sir. You're asking questions. It's all you get to do.
SA: I'm asking questions. Very well.
SA: Mr. Tetreault, you've indicated you keep a dog to, let you, to warn you of, when people, are, near your property. Is that why you keep a dog?
RT: Is to keep me awared of the, some animal sometime, or let me know when somebody come in, because I can't hear them.
SA: That's good. So, the dog barking upsets you.
RT: Well, he, he let me know, somebody coming, maybe half a mile away, so I know what to expect.
SA: That's reasonable. If there are a dozen dogs on the county road, and only one dog on your road, which one would cause the least amount of, upset?
JvS: Objection, unintelligible.
SA: Huh.
Judge: Hmmm, I'd say that would be, probably speculative too.
JvS: Yes.
SA: Okay fine, I'll strike that. Mr. Tetreault, was the road there in it's current location before you bought the property?
RT: The road, when I bought a property, that road was not _cobulate_, really drivable. Because they was using that for logging, I was using the Bottom road for a couple years before. I clean it, and I help, so I can use it, more often.
SA: Was that road, there, decades before you moved there?
RT: Oh yeah,
JvS: Objection, calls for speculation.
Judge: Well if he can answer it, you can answer, go ahead.
RT: Well, it was there, but was not properly, finished, was just rough logging.
JvS: Excuse me your honor, I thought he said 'was the road bare' b a r e.
Judge: No no, there, he said, t h e r e. I think, that's what I put down.
SA: Yes.   No questions further at this time thank you.
Judge: This is your last chance, to have him up front, ask questions.
SA: Ah, the rest of it would be statements, not questions.
Judge: Okay.
JvS: Um.
Judge: Do you have any witnesses?
JvS: No.
Judge: Do you rest?
JvS: We rest.
Judge: Okay.
Judge: Now it's your turn sir to, ask er,   provide testimony, and provide exhibits to the court.
SA: Would the, your honor like me to read my, the response I've submitted?
Judge: Uh, l  Let's see, No, I don't think uh,   let's see. One of these exhibits?
SA: The responses.
Judge: It's your response. Now, I see response one and response two. Which one are you talking about?
SA: Both.
JvS: I'll object to response two.
Judge: And the basis of your objection?
JvS: Uh,   One, it's, Response two is all hearsay. There is uh,   nothing in there that isn't hearsay. The uh,   documents State vs. Smith I've already addressed, it's not relevant to the facts in this case. And the, description by the Williams has already been admitted, so there's really nothing else in here other than, uh,   a narrative, and I can't object to a narrative without objecting to the entire narrative.
Judge: So what you're saying is, you want him to testify.
JvS: Exactly.
Judge: Okay. Because you don't object to his response number one.
JvS: Number one is, I, still like him to testify, but at least response number one is, is of the record.
Judge: So you do object to him, reading his response?
JvS: Yeah, I think that's a narrative, and we'll have to do the whole thing by question and answer in order for me to preserve um, ,  my right to object.
Judge: Okay. Um.   As much as I dislike doing this, I'm going to order you to testify. Um.   You can certainly use your notes, I guess, to refresh your recollection if you forget something. But um, I don't think notes are your notes, the problem is most of your notes are probably not made contemporary with the event that took place. Is that correct?
Judge: Well like, um, lets see, March 25th. When, when did you prepare this response?
SA: Shortly, after, I received, that, warrant, and, paperwork.
Judge: That would be back in, let's see, this thing got started, April 12th. No this got started April 12th. When did the criminal matter get started?
SA: It was, dated March 25th, it was right after I received it.
Judge: When did you, petition for? March 23rd. Okay. March 23rd 2013 is the date you prepared response number one. Thereabouts?
SA: 25th.
Judge: The 25th. Okay, you can use that. And the remainder of these things, deal with different times?
SA: I refer to other, incidents that happened at previous times, is that what you're referring to?
Judge: Um hmm. You say something like ten to fifteen times,
SA: Ah.
Judge: Say number, three? So I think what I want you to do is just testify. Can't use your notes unless you absolutely go blank.
SA: That's why I prepared these, is so that I, would have some, thing to go by.
Judge: Well. No, you got to testify from your recollection, okay? The best of your recollection. But if you go absolutely blank, I will allow you use, response number one. Okay? I'm not going to say anything about two or three.
SA: I'll use them as my notes then.
SA: I am, responding to his accusations that JD climbed the fence, and yet I saw the dog jumped over the fence twice. And also, I learned that Deputy Lofts, who saw JD leap the fence like it wasn't there.
Judge: Objection. I'm. I don't want you saying what anybody else says. I want only your testimony. Okay?
SA: Got it. Sorry your honor.
Judge: Okay.
JvS: Question and answer? or just...
Judge: Uh, h hms uh, i  If you want to object to something, make your objection when he says it.
JvS: All right.
Judge: Okay.
SA: I advise I understand it I need to, ds uh, refute,   Refute.
Judge: Whatever you saw sir, or you, you heard, you can testify to. Um,   If it's a tape, you know,   it comes from a tape, then I don't want to hear it.
SA: Okay.
Judge: If you recorded something or if you've, uh you know, if you've   got a, photograph. You know, photographs usually come in.
SA: Okay.
Judge: If the situation but.
SA: I'm referring to the statement on the request for protection for protection order.
Judge: Okay.
SA: Where Ron claims the fence was six foot tall, and where I saw the dog jumped out, it could not have been six foot tall. On the same statement, it says that I was charging the dog ten to fifteen times. I am stating I did not do that, I did not charge the dog. When the dog started attacking us, my horse was wanting to back up and keep away from the dog. It says in the statement that, uh,   'Ron yelled at him to stop.' I believe that was me, but his,
JvS: Um, l  Lets, we object, based on speculation as to what was in Ron's mind.
SA: I'm sorry, that's true.
Judge: Um hmmm. So then
SA: In any case after I heard
Judge: Object sustained.
SA: Hm, Sorry.
Judge: Go ahead.
SA: After I heard him, tell me to stand still, I did keep my horse from walking forward, which was, intended to get us out of the danger zone. And so we stad,   stood there on the side of the road. Until, Ron came around to, collect his dog which took an extra minute to do so. And that actually prolonged the danger as the dog was continually nipping and jumping at Rowan. In the statement Ron says 'JD stopped barking and sat down,' and from what I saw, that only happened three minutes, after, of attack. After gr.   After three minutes of attack, and only 52 seconds after Ron first attempted to catch or stop the dog. In the statement Ron says that he put him back on the chain, but when Deputy Lofts. Uh can't
Judge: Excuse me.
SA: I can't use that one.
Judge: Nope.
SA: Not without having Deputy Lofts here. Okay.
SA: Doctor Konz was out for the emergency service, and did not question it was a dog bite injury. And
JvS: Objection your honor, of whether she questioned it or not doesn't prove what kind of injury it was.
Judge: Hm mm.
SA: I have a picture of it, would you like me to present that?
Judge: That's. Do I want to see the picture of what? the bill?
SA: The, No, the dog bite, injury. I thought we could skip over that, but perhaps you would like to see it.
Judge: Nope. Let's skip over it.
SA: Thank you. With the issue of whether or not I can go past his place, it is also an ingress and egress for me to get to the next county road to the north, as well as forest lands in the east.
Judge: That's your position.
SA: That's my position.
Judge: Okay.
SA: The riding trails are specified in the easements. Whether or not the actual road location has been surveyed. The road is a legal pre-existing access road, and I believe that that makes it eligible for riding on. Further, this part of Ferry County is open range, which would make it eligible for riding in.
JvS: Huh objection. Calls for speculation. Calls for a legal conclusion. Um,   Open Range has nothing to do with uh,   whether or not a bridle trail exists, or whether you can ride horses on a bridle trail, and Ferry County open range lines, open range specifically excludes anything but cattle. And, is only in effect June 1st to October 15th.
Judge: Okay. Sustained. Go ahead.
SA: Mr. Tetreault says in the statement 'that these mns for others past him.'
JvS: I'm not sure. What did you say?
SA: Is for the, uh find it. Take too long. I have had several, incidents with Mr. Tetreault driving, that threatening me, and it is because of those, incidents that I even got a camera, and tried to, collect the evidence that the deputies and sheriff office was saying that I did not have for them to act upon. I do not have a machete, I have a tree saw. And I only use it on trees. When I say you won't see it in the any video, because, when you're mounted on a horse you can not even reach the dog, with any blade. And I do not have a long sword. And I would not use it on the dog in any case. I do not find any pleasure in, harassing the dogs, or bothering Mr. Tetreault. Nor do I have any in causing injury to the animals. I value their, health and good, and integrity. I have not rubbed against his fence. That's the one reason I stay in the middle of the road, is to stay off the sides.
SA: Okay. Now with regards to the, well worn path that ends at Ron's gate, I agree that it is less well worn past his gate. But, I also can,   have provided exhibits that show, that the road is well traveled past it, on North Lambert Lane. Because there are several other people that do, live past his place, and drive past it. Can I enter into exhibit at this time, numbers 20 and 21.
JvS: Well, if I can see what they are.
SA: They're, you have them in front of you, it's just a matter of not having them numbered.
JvS: Well, that's why I need to see them.
SA: They'd be the ones labeled 185 North Lambert Lane, and 190 North Lambert Lane. It shows that the roadway,
Judge: These two are what you're talking about?
SA: The one in your left hand is yes. And there you go the other one.
Judge: So you have three of them.
JvS: I've only got one, I think. Oh!
SA: Two of them are in, that location past Ron's.
JvS: I see, okay.
SA: Yes your left hand has the two I'm referring to. The pictures are meant to show that it is, well traveled, not grassy, where the tires roll. It still has grass in the middle because no one's taken a bulldozer to it, to, smoothen it out.
Judge: Are you moving for the admission of these two documents? These photographs
SA: Yes.
Judge: or three documents?
SA: Two. At this point.
Judge: Two.   Two at this point. Okay.
JvS: No objection. Which one is one and which is two?
SA: Um, h  He would have that answer on the back of his.
JvS: I don't
Judge: Uh,   20 is the horse's ears.
JvS: Okay.
Judge: 21 is the, lane.
SA: Okay.
Judge: I don't know whether, 20 is for the purpose of showing that, it seems to drop off to the left, of the roadway. Uh,   I'm not sure what the purpose is.
SA: The purpose of number 20 shows the, eastern edge of Ron's property, is, all dirt, not grassy. And it is in the shade, so is not a perfect picture in that regard.
Judge: What's the importance of knowing whether it's, grassy or not grassy I guess?
SA: How many people travel it. It's a response also to, plaintiff's exhibit one that shows, the well worn tracks turn into Ron's gate.
Judge: Well I would say probably this picture was taken, during the summer time?
JvS: I believe that was taken, about a month,   month ago.
Judge: About a month ago? Okay. And this picture was obviously taken in,   in, spring. Probably, these two pictures,
SA: It has a date in the lower right. Can I see that for a moment?
JvS: 6-3 according to,
SA: Yeah June 3rd.
JvS: What's on mine.
SA: Very recent.
Judge: Oh, I'm sorry, yeah, down there at the base. Okay. This was taken June 3rd, 2013. Okay.
SA: Okay. Moving on to Upper Happy Valley Road, I have a picture here that I have not yet, submitted for exhibit, that shows, how steep and narrow it is.
Judge: Are you moving, you Are moving for, admission of these exhibits?
SA: Yes.
Judge: These two here? Okay. Any objection to those coming in?
JvS: Not 20 and 21. No, no objection.
Judge: Okay. 20 and 21 are in.
SA: They also show how, much wider the road is than Upper Happy Valley. May I move to have these submitted?
Judge: Why don't you show them to Mr. Von Sauer first.
SA: Okay. Here's the copy.
JvS: I've no objections.
Judge: No objections? Okay they'll be marked as uh,   22 and 23.
SA: Just 22. This is a copy.
Judge: Oh.
SA: One for you, and one for you.
Clerk: Thank you.
SA: You're welcome.
Clerk: And you are saying that this picture would be defendant's exhibit what?
Judge: 22.
Clerk: There you go.
Judge: Thank you. And, this is uh,   where was this location at?
SA: It says right on the lower left, 10 Happy Valley Road.
Judge: So this is the other road?
SA: This is the lower road.
Judge: Lower road. Okay.
SA: The purpose of it is to show, the steep sides. The road is narrow. There is no place to get off the road, if there is any traffic. And if any other vehicles were to be on the road at the same time they would have to back down, which is, looks very dangerous. And I hm, uh hm.  
Judge: Okay.
SA: Okay. Regarding the, complaints that I have made against Ron Tetreault, I have, submitted, statements to the sheriffs office. If I do not, apparently have the originals that, I signed and, gave to them to be filed, but I have my own copies which I blot,   thought would be sufficient.
JvS: One, I'm going to object, uh I, I'm not sure as relevance, I mean what issue does it go to?
SA: The relevance is that, it is, wh umm,   Mr. Tetreault harassing me that caused me to get a camera, that brought about the condition he is now complaining about.
SA: With regard to my actions invading his privacy, I'm sorry my being there does bother him. No matter which direction I ride, I will have dogs running at me, and people being maybe bothered, but I can not tell. I try to choose paths that has the least amount of, friction. And so I saj, I   submit that my travel on the road is not different from other people's travel on the road, except but,   for my choice of vehicle.
Judge: Okay.
SA: Okay. Mr. Tetreault complained that I was trimming the cherry trees. At this time I submit the other picture that you have, number 19, which shows the location of those trees. Two and tree years ago the bear did pull down those cherry trees to get at the berries, and that resulted in
Judge: Excuse me uh,   19?
SA: Number 19.
Judge: Exhibit number 19?
SA: The picture, remaining, of the horse's ears.
Judge: So that's, these cherry trees are off to the left, or the right?
SA: Left. This shows after it was trimmed, or before that they got pulled down.
JvS: And the relevance is?
SA: I trim the trees, to keep the road unobstructed. This benefited, Mr. Tetreault. There were not his trees, and their not his bear. It's not a, complaint worth, spending time on. And, also, I was, um what's the word, Contract. Contract me. Uh   the owner, past this location did contract me, to trim the road to his property. And so that was maintenance of his easement. So when Mr. Tetreault complains that I trimmed, the bushes, to be,   deny the bear food, I am responding to that here.
SA: Now when,
JvS: Is this where you told me the bear's hide or will go over that part?
SA: Now, when Mr. Tetreault said there's no-one else riding past his place, I can offer, the plaintiff's exhibits from the dangerous dog hearing, that show, other people say they have ridden past his place.
JvS: Objection, hearsay.
Judge: Sustained.
SA: But it was entered into the court as evidence.
JvS: It's hearsay.
Judge: Doesn't matter. Wasn't entered into this court.
SA: Their statements, I provided?
Judge: I'm not going to allow them.
SA: You're not going to allow them.
Judge: Nope. They are hearsay.
SA: Not enough proof. Hmf. Is the only, proof, pictures of people riding past his place?
Judge: Sir, you're case, not my case. I'm not going to tell you how to write it. I'm just telling you that, he's made an objection as to hearsay, and it is in fact hearsay, and uh,   if you wanted to bring those folks to come in here to testify you could've done that.
SA: I bu, I was under the impression, that their statement were admissible.
Judge: No, I'm sorry sir. Move on.
SA: Move on, very well. All right.
SA: I have got a camera, and I do take pictures, of where I ride through I ride through dangerous places. And as long as I'm on the, public access roads, and I'm in a public space, those pictures are, legal to take. The question is to whether or not audio is legal to take, and in the state of Washington, I acknowledge that there is a privacy law, and in paragraph 2b of RCW 9.73.030, that Mr. Von Sauer brought up at the last hearing, there is an exception to recording threats of bodily harm. So, I submit that the pi, the, audio recordings I, video-  audio-video recordings I took in 2010, and 2013, that did catch Ron's voice, are therefore an exception, under that paragraph.
Judge: You're over ruled. There is no exception under, for taking other peoples, under the circumstances you've alleged, there is no exception, on, what that you've providing me, of taking audio, of another person. You would like to utilize something in a criminal proceeding, it would be a question. I'm saying it also applies here. You don't have the right to take other peoples, uh,   conversations, unless you tell them you're doing.
SA: I try not to catch conversations, and in this case I'm sorry your honor if I made a mistake.
Judge: Okay. Just don't do it. I wouldn't do it, personally, because you're going to get yourself charged, with quote unquote, 'a crime' at some point in time. Enough said, let's move on.
SA: I, believe that that's all I have to say your honor.
Judge: Okay. Mr. Von Sauer your witness.
JvS: Thank you your honor. Did you ever mention, measure the fence.
SA: No. I never, went off the road to do such a thing.
JvS: Now you say you didn't charge the uh,   dog 10 or 15 times, how many times did you charge the dog?
SA: On that date. None.
JvS: You didn't do anything to protect your horse?
SA: No I didn't. I was trying to think of what I could do. But,
JvS: Try to get out of the way?
SA: In my opinion, galloping away could only provoke the dog into a chase. But perhaps that's something I could try next time.
JvS: Now. You indicated while this was, happening, that you somehow, timed the uh,   time it took Mr. Tetreault to uh,   get his dog, 52 seconds?
SA: Yes.
JvS: And you were watching your watch all this time?
SA: No. This is from playing back the video afterwards. For that's the purpose of taking video is to get evidence that can therefore be,
JvS: There's no question pending sir. You indicated you take the, least dangerous road, Meaning, that it is less dangerous to go by Mr. Tetreault's property than the property of the other land owners, up on North Lambert Lane
SA: Up until March, yes.
JvS: So you have problems with other landowners, up in that area, is that correct?
SA: I have problems with several dogs up and down the county road.
JvS: Yet you still take your horse, on the uh,   private roads, up and, around Mr. Tetreault's place?
SA: Yes. A small percentage of the time yes.
JvS: Now other than the, private access roads are there any other uh,   horse trails uh,   anywhere?
SA: Not nearby. Have to get up to the trail-heads to find, real, designated horse trails.
JvS: You talking about the National forest?
SA: National forest. At the trail-heads.
JvS: That's, too far to go.
SA: To get to the trail-heads and back, I could tell you exactly how many miles it is, and how many, calculated calories it is. It's basically a long ways. You spend half, three quarters of your energy and duration, just to get there. The only other way would be to buy a horse trailer and drive up there. Which I am generally opposed to doing, because of my, desire to not drive.
JvS: Mr. Tetreault's home is 1.2 miles from uh,   your place, isn't that correct?
SA: Yes.
JvS: So you need to uh,   take your horse 1.2 miles to get to, Mr. Tetreault's dog.
SA: Yes.
JvS: You don't go uh,   the bottom route because there are more dogs down there, correct?
SA: No, it's not for the dogs reason.
JvS: For the people.
SA: It's for the steepness and dangerousness of the road, and the least comfortable path.
JvS: What kind of tree saw are we talking about?
SA: I have a fold up model that fits in the saddle bag, and I have a longer 18 inch, blade that I sometimes attach to the outside of the saddle. Neither of which, The first of which is not eas nes neas,   easily accessible, and the other one, was not attached to the saddle, on the day the dog attacked.
JvS: Now that's your regular, fold up pruning saw with maybe a, 10 to 12 inch blade.?
SA: Oh no not that long it's only, 8 to 10?
JvS: It's metal correct?
SA: Yes.
JvS: Is it new?
SA: Not any more.
JvS: When you were at Mr. Tetreault's place was it new?
SA: I had no tree saw with me on that day.
JvS: It was strictly Mr. Tetreault's imagination that you had uh,   something he describes as a machete.
SA: That is correct. And if the video, and camera pictures were admissible, then you could see that.
SA: There we go. To your earlier question,
JvS: No.
SA: Not now.
JvS: No question pending at the moment.
SA: I am clarifying an earlier answer.
JvS: No,
Judge: You might do that on redirect sir.
SA: Okay. Then I better write it down.
JvS: Now you say that the, both these roads are dangerous roads to back down, correct?
SA: Not both.
JvS: Which one, is not dangerous to back down?
SA: North Lambert Lane, it's wider, and it's flatter longer.
JvS: Doesn't it go straight up hill?
SA: It goes up hill.
JvS: From your house to the, crest of the uh,   mountains, it's straight up pretty much, correct?
SA: I believe I know which section you're referring to, it's where the bear, picture,   tree pictures are at.
JvS: And there's a canyon there that is,
SA: There is a canyon on the left.
JvS: that houses bears regularly, correct?
SA: Twice a year.
JvS: And it's wooded, correct?
SA: Yes. Only in the canyon.
JvS: You don't believe that that's dangerous to back down?
SA: No.
JvS: Apart from the other road.
SA: Exhibit 19 does not look dangerous to back down, as compared to exhibit 22.
JvS: This is not exhibit 19, this is what, the one with the horse ears?
SA: 19 is from, Upper Happy Valley Road. That's 22, and uh,   yes 19 is the one with the horse ears and the, on. That one.
JvS: That's not the steepest part of the road is it?
SA: That's, slightly less steep than the steepest part, but it is, fairly consistent grade up the canyon. There are two places that are steeper, yes. But you can see how it climbs the hill.
JvS: I have no further questions.
Judge: Mr. Andreas,   Andreason uh,   anything you want to add?
SA: I want to add one thing. The, number of miles it takes to, get up to the Lambert Creek trail-heads, and back, is a round trip of 15 1/2 to 16 miles, on the energy level, because of the flat distance of 5 times 2, 11 miles, plus the climb up to 4 thousand whatever hundred feet that is. On my scale that is 60 percent of the longest trip we've ever taken. And we don't do that very often. So to get to the trail-heads, on the county road .It does not happen very often because of the, distance and the traffic.
Judge: Anything more?
JvS: No your honor.
SA: I have a picture of uh,   where I've traveled, if anyone's interested.
Judge: A picture of where, you offering a picture for what?
SA: I'm offering a picture, a map of where I have been. And I'm also, offer a map that explains, which lands are public and which are private. Other than that, I believe I don't really have anything else to, say.
Judge: Does it show the, does it show uh,   the Lane here?
SA: Yes.
Judge: Does it show the other?
SA: The other road below yes.
Judge: The lower road. Do you want to see it Mr. Von Sauer, or maybe you already,
JvS: Well see what it is here.
Judge: Would it help me?
SA: Would it help him, that's the question.
JvS: I doubt it.
SA: Too much information at once?
JvS: Well he's, he's indicated this indicates what's public and what's public, I don't  
SA: And what's part of CRR.
JvS: I don't know what CRR is.
SA: Curlew Rim Ranches, the development name.
JvS: Well, I don't know if that's going to help him any but,
SA: That Williams was at least part
Judge: We don't have any, we don't have any uh,   documents before us, placing, yes your subdivision, division two or division three whatever I got written down,
SA: Division three?
JvS: It's division three.
Judge: No recording has ever been made as to that particular,
JvS: Yeah,
SA: Own
Judge: division.
JvS: Well I think that's important for the court, and I will go ahead and introduce, uh
SA: Yes there is
JvS: Mark this, and,
Judge: What's
JvS: It's Curlew Rim Ranches, Division number three.
Judge: Okay, Do you want to, you seen it?
SA: I've seen the plat map,
Judge: You have any objection to it?
SA: many times over eight years yes. No objection.
Judge: Okay.
Clerk: You're calling this?
JvS: Exhibit plaintiff four.
Clerk: Complainant?
JvS: I mean,
Judge: Petitioners. P.
Clerk: Huh?
Judge: P. P.
Clerk: I thought it was his, I'm sorry.
There you go.
Judge: Can you supply a magnifying glass for us old timers so we can see this thing?
JvS: I had that same problem your honor, I was going to, the uh,
Judge: I think it'd
Clerk: We do have one if you'd like
JvS: I had to go
Judge: If I could, once I get off the bench.
JvS: I had to go downstairs and look the actual plat map to read it, but I did have blown up the bottom part, on page 2. Just those there which talks about the easements, and uh,   I guess we can mark this P five.
Judge: Well, Has he had enough chance to look at it?
SA: I've, I've seen 1 3, 1 5, yes, yes I've seen that one.
Clerk: And what's this called? Description.
JvS: This is just a blown up copy of the, language on the
Judge: Legal description for an easement.
Clerk: Okay. Thank you.
JvS: Admit P-5.
Judge: Five is admitted. Four, Three four and five are admitted, I guess. P-4,5, P-4 and P-5 are admitted. Okay. Does this conclude, every, both sides rest now at this point?
JvS: I do.
SA: I had another exhibit that I had in that packet that I, perhaps should have mentioned, and have submitted.
Judge: What exhibit is that?
SA: I, am trying to find out.
Judge: Okay, take a moment, then you can make argument.
SA: Also there was, uh.   If the bit with trimming the trees was important I have that agreement as one of the exhibits. I'm. You've y  You've said none of those were actually submitted until I request them, I believe. Judge: Show them to Mr. Von Sauer, and, see if we get agreement they come in.
SA: Understood. Okay.
Judge: Are you talking about these exhibits here, these colored?
SA: Yeah, That's one. What number's on top please?
Judge: D-4, and the other one is D-5.
SA: Which one was five please?
Judge: Let's see, Map 1000 feet, P A property or, plaintiff's property, p  Petitioner's property. I'm not sure I can read you handwriting sir.
SA: That was the clerk's. Number four is the one showing 1000 feet requested by the petitioner. It also shows the location of, the property lines and the suggested easement lines as on, shown on, the, P-4 that was just shown to you that has Division three's easements and property lines. Was that four? That's four.
Judge: I'm sorry, you're going to have to run that by, again. What did you just say? I was looking at, trying to look at the map and follow you, and I wasn't able to do so. So you're looking at D-4, and you're,
SA: Looking at, looking   at D-4 with the yellow oval,
Judge: Why don't you show that to Mr. Von Sauer, if he has any problem with it?
SA: Do you have that in your packet?
JvS: Yes I've, seen it before.
Judge: Do you have any problem with it coming in, as an exhibit?
JvS: Uh just uh,   as to what it's, what's, it being admitted for. What purpose.
SA: Originally I put the yellow oval on because it was what was requested in the, protection order,
JvS: Oh as to the thousand feet?
SA: and since we are discussing the location of, the, what you just uh, ha,   submitted, P-4? I am showing where those lines are, in relationship to the physical land
JvS: Well I'm not,
SA: If you don't,
JvS: sure, I can uh,   stipulate to that. I can certainly, um.   And I don't know how we got the thousand feet either.
SA: That was in your March 25th request.
JvS: Oh. How did you get to a thousand feet on this, diagram? That's
SA: Measurement. Based on the, plat map showing each property as being 320 to 330 feet long, you can, get a thousand feet drawn on easily.
JvS: Well uh,
SA: Locating it on the aerial map is a skill, that I've spent eight years on.
JvS: Well um, I uh,   can't stipulate it's to scale, or that uh,   it's accurate for demonstrative purposes, I don't have a problem.
Judge: Okay. So what you're basically saying is, you just don't like, the yellow marker?
JvS: Well I, I
Judge: Is that the only one you don't like?
JvS: It's
Judge: A thousand feet.
JvS: Well, yeah, I don't know how he got to the thousand feet.
Judge: He got to a thousand feet because in your client's uh,
JvS: I understand that. That, that part I understand. But how he got here to a thousand feet, I'm not stipulating,
Judge: He's saying that he's a mathematician,
JvS: Right, exactly.
Judge: unlike you and I. And he can figure out a thousand feet on a map.
JvS: Yes. That's what he saying.
Judge: You raised your hand. That's okay.
SA: You asked for a magnifying glass to be able to see the property lines. I am trying to provide one that is larger, and you can, match up.
Judge: Okay. Thank you. So this, this is a blow up of this one? Basically.
SA: Oh yeah.
Judge: Hm mm. So, I'm going to admit D-4 and D-5 for illustrative purposes only. Okay?
JvS: Hh
Judge: And it'll help, me. And I assume that if you looked at, uh,   D-4, you look at the red property, which is denoted as the home of Ron, Tetreault. Uh, t  The actual buildings that are shown here on, or bumps, are probably buildings, is that not correct?
SA: I can point out the buildings there where the road curves, yes.
Judge: Where the road curves. Right? The rest of the, self explanatory I think. Okay. Good. That'll help me. I'll admit those two. Let's see, D-4 and D-5. Anything else?
JvS: No.
SA: I believe I interrupted you, while you were, submitting P-4, and, I didn't hear, what the reason for submitting it was.
JvS: I don't even remember what P-4 was, I think that's the,
Judge: D-4. His objection to you admitting it was based upon the fact you did a mathematical calculation. Based upon a thousand feet.
SA: Before that.
Judge: And showed it on the, on, and I'm just going to ignore that yellow, circle.
JvS: Okay.
Judge: I know how to solve that problem.
SA: If you have,
Judge: Okay? Anything else gentlemen?
JvS: No, I'm ready to proceed to argument.
SA: The purpose was to show how a thousand feet was not reasonable.
Judge: Let's see, a second, Let me get,
Judge: Oops. Um, off the record for a moment.
JvS: Sure.
Judge: Okay. Mr. Von Sauer?
JvS: Yes your honor. I'll make this extremely brief. The whole purpose of the anti-harassment law, and the statutes, uh,   governing interception of private communications, are to protect a person's right of privacy. In this case the right of privacy has shown to be extremely important to Mr. Tetreault. He, lives in the middle of nowhere. He lives alone. His companions are a dog. He's indicated that the dog helps him, because he's disabled and is not, uh,   able to hear, uh   for his protection. Um.   He's indicated his nearest neighbor is, 300, uh,   over 600 feet away. The anti-harassment statute, states course of conduct means a pattern of conduct comprised of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a conti, tinue,   continuity of purpose. Well Mr. Tetreault has shown that. He's shown Mr. Andreason has uh,   come on his property. Mr. Andreason has also admitted, that he has, in a since targeting Mr. Tetreault, because Mr. Tetreault, uhs, 's  dog barks at him, and he's had problems with Mr. Tetreault. He goes by Mr. Tetreault's property because it's, the least restrictive, uh,   opportunity. His other neighbors have dogs. His other neighbors have provided him with problems, and so uh,   he goes by Mr. Tetreault's property at the top of the hill, to uh,   convenience himself. And he does this because, he does not want to buy a horse trailer, and take his horse to the riding trails that have been established, uh,   seven miles up Lambert Creek in the National Forest. Uh.   You look at Curlew Rim Ranches number three subdivision. It states, that the purpose of these easements is for egress an,   and ingress. It doesn't state, that these are recreational easements, that uh,   burden the land at all. It doesn't state that the roads, are bridle paths. Uh.   The photographs show that these roads, are a, one, lane, dirt, road. Mr. Andreason prefers to drive in the center of the road, thereby denying, all, other, users of the road, the ability to get to their property. Unless they, wait for him to get out of the way which of course, he has stated he's done this on occasion, he says he prefers, not to. Now, the issue is, what's going on when Mr. Andreason comes to Mr. Tetreault's property? Mr. Tetreault has stated, that uh,   his dog uh, doesn't bark at anybody,   barks at everybody! but doesn't go, uh,   crazy except for when, Mr. Andreason comes by, on his horse, with his camera, uh.   Mr. Tetreault speculates that, it's the glare from the camera lens, but he also testified that uh,   these dogs, can feel, or at least his dog can feel that something's not right. Now whether it's, uh,   the dog's sensitivity to maybe, Mr. Andreason personally, or maybe it is to the horse, I'm not sure a dog can differentiate between, a horse, and a man, and a, man on a horse, just like uh,   the early uh,   Aztec's were unable to uh,   determine, whether the man on a horse was one animal, or two. But, the question is not necessarily what's in the, dog's mind, it's the, legitimate purposes of uh,   using the, private easement roads, as a means, of recreational use. Nobody would, uh,   have a problem, uh   complaining about 4-wheelers running down, up and down these, roads as being a, nuisance, to these property owners. The horse, may seem innocuous, but not when it's blocking the road of people, trying to get up, or down, their property. Um.   There's been plenty of testimony about the dangers of moving, a vehicle off the road, to get around this horse. Uh.   These are serious constraints. Now the violation of property, having somebody come up, on your isolated, remote, property. On a continuing basis, photographing and recording, You, is a serious invasion of somebody's property. I don't think of anybody who, could like that. Mr. Tetreault is not a public figure. He hasn't uh,   done anything other than to say look, stay away from my place. I. You, you,   You make my animals nervous, you make them, crazy. Uh.   Go another way. He hasn't told him he can't ride his horse, just don't ride it by my place. It's not, t  This is not, what the road is for. But it continually happens, and it happens on a regular basis. Now, whether Mr. Andreason does something to, aggravate the dogs we'll never know. Mr. Tetreault uh,   certainly can't hear anything, uh   but the dogs can. And the dogs are very sensitive in their ears, they can, sense uh,   Mr. Andreason and the horse coming up, long before he ever shows up. Uh, t  That's just the nature of a dog. Um.   But something's going on, and something's going on repeatedly. Uh.   This is not uh,   you know, an isolated situation. This is a,   a course of conduct, that happens, on a somewhat regular basis. Even Mr. Andreason says, well, in this year I was only up there twelve times. Uh, b  But. He says, 89 times he's recorded it. He says Oh well he started recording this stuff, uh,   when the problems, uh,   developed. Well that can't be true. How would he know it was 89 times in the last 9.6 years, if that statement had any merit what-so-ever. Uh,   It doesn't. For whatever reason, Mr. Andreason, um,   feels it's his right, and, and maybe because he, has this hypervilligent uh,   attitude about his neighbors, that everybody's out to get him and he wants to document that. Irrespective of his, motivation, his conduct, uh   is a serious invasion of privacy, and the civil anti-harassment statutes are designed, uh   in part to protect a reasonable expectation of privacy. And in this case, Mr. Tetreault has done whatever he could, he lives out in the boonies, he's off a, one lane dirt road. Uh, t  The photographs indicate that uh,   the road use is Mostly by him. There is a well warm, well   worn path directly into his gate, uh   and uh,   there's a growth over that. With regards to these other photographs, well, you know, wagon tracks, uh   from the turn of the century. It's compacted the earth, uh   so badly in places, the grass won't grow. Uh,   We do have grass that's, grown over at least on, uh,   Mr. uh,   Tetreault's side of the road, to we can actually see it. Now these other places where the, um,   grass hasn't grown, well that could be for a number of reasons. The most obvious reason is the, ground is compacted, and it's compacted, and nothing will grow there, until the uh,   ground gets stirred up to where the uh,   roots have something to live off of. Um,   In this case, we are not asking for, monetary damage, we are just asking, for Mr. Tetreault to be left, alone, by Mr. Andreason, and his horse. Uh   Mr. Andreason says Oh well I have a right to have the horse there. But that's, that's not true. Nowhere has it shown, that these roads, are, bridle paths. Or that anybody, else has made that claim, or that any of the predecessors in interest has made that claim. He seeks to um, uh   base his argument on something, the Williams did, but the truth of the matter is, the Williams didn't do anything. The didn't dedicate any, bridle paths, they didn't dedicate, any roads, they didn't survey, any roads, and they didn't, Mark, any roads that we know of. So their deed, which is the only deed that Mr. Andreason could find that talked about, bridle paths, is legally, not relevant. And uh,   Based on that, I think that Mr. uh,   Mr. Tetreault's right of privacy should be respected. A protection order keeping Mr. Andreason away from Mr. Tetreault's property, is certainly justified under these circumstances. There is nothing that provides, uh   prevents Mr. Andreason except other dogs, and other land owners, from using the, lower road, to get to where he wants to go. Question here is whether uh,   Mr. uh,   Tetreault, uhs 's  position that he, has the right to be left alone by horsemen using his access road, or the access road, that he uses to get to his home, um,   aren't blocking, uh uh   or coming by and aggravating uh,   his dog. I think under the circumstances a protection order should be ur,   granted. Maybe not the 1000 feet, which is less than half a mile. But uh, uh,   Mr. Andreason has admitted that he's about 1.2 miles from Mr. Tetreault's, um, um,   residence. Um.   The thousand feet of course should start uh,   not from Mr. Tetreault's property, but from his residence, uh   which would give uh,   a little less uh,   distance to cover. But even, Even   five hundred feet would be acceptable to Mr. Tetreault. I think based on that we rest. Again.
Judge: Okay. Mr. Andreason?
SA: One moment your honor.
Judge: Okay.
SA: Your honor, When I moved here to Ferry County, and chose, this, piece of property with my family. We, chose it, partially based on the easements that we were given by the title company, that showed there to be, riding trails. And, there were roads for ingress and egress, and in the event of fires, having a second road in and out of an area is, not only beneficial, but it is sometimes expected. The road up past Mr. Tetreault's property, does go down to, St. Peters Creek Road, another county road. It is another access road, that is, legal, and pre-existing, and it can be used for ingress and egress. Mr. Tetreault does not have to go past, my place, in order to get to the county road. He can also go north, to the next county road, which is in fact, closer. Also, that there is not, bridle trails, does not, it does not   exclude the fact, that one, can, ride a bicycle, or walk, as a means of ingress and egress to one's property. I do not always ride in the center of the road and only in the center of the road, I do in fact move off the road as quickly as, it is possible. Apparently this is not always fast enough, for Mr. Tetreault, and it is because of that that I have made complaints in the past. I don't understand why I "prefer not to move off the road," that is incorrect. I do prefer to move off the road, and I have, constantly moved off the road in the past as quickly as possible. The glare of the camera lens can Not be what triggers the dog because the camera lens is only an eighth of an inch wide. Four wheelers going past the place Would be a nuisance, and, I disagree that that would be acceptable to Mr. Von Sauer and Mr. Tetreault that 4-wheelers can go past his place, but yet I can not. I do Not take photos of Mr. Tetreault when I go past his place, I look, at the road, and, hopefully nothing happens, bad. The camera is only there for, evidence in case something criminal does happen. And yes I only have gone past his place seven times in the last year, and I Do keep records of Where I go, and, I perhaps should have submitted those as exhibits, but I did not. But I do keep track of where I go, and it has nothing to do with keeping track of, or   or surveilling Mr. Tetreault as, as   it is claimed. With regards to wagon trails, "places that grass never grows," that can not be correct because the ground freezes, and thaws, and gets soft, on it's own. Grass will grow wherever it can. The roads, look well traveled because they are well traveled. The purpose of going past Mr. Tetreault's property to visit, his neighbors, or to go, ingress and egress to the next county road, is provided for. And that's all I can think of.  
Judge: Okay. Anything additional, Mr. Von Sauer?
JvS: Yes your honor, just, briefly. Uh,   [MP3] These roads, these egress, and, ingress roads, are made for, motor vehicle traffic. Um and,   I guess, pedestrians certainly can use them, but they are not, made, for horses. Horses and riders. That's, not, a permitted, or even an implied, use, of egress and ingress. Um,   And whether whether,   Mr. Tetreault decides to go down the road, past, Mr. Andreason's house, or whether Mr. Andreason should drive, uh uh,   to St. Peters Creek is not the point. The point is, whether this is an equestrian trail, and it is not.
Judge: Okay. Anything you want to say?
SA: The only thing left, it that it Is, implied, as a riding trail, in the paperwork, attached, to the division. That includes that section, quarter section.
Judge: Okay. It's about 4:10. Court's going to take a little time, to go back to my notes, think, about this, I'll be back, hopefully uh,   and have a cup of coffee by the way. I'll be back about, a quarter to five, okay?
JvS: Thank you.
Clerk: In recess?
Judge: Court's in recess.
Judge: You may be seated.
JvS: Thank you.
Judge: On the request of Ronald J. Tetreault, and in the matter of Tetreault vs. Stewart E. Andreason. Uh,   Cause number CVH-13-05. The court has added an order for protection. Basically the court is restraining the respondent from any, making any attempts to keep under surveillance the petitioner. The respondent is restrained from making any attempts to contact the petitioner, except by legal process. He's also restrained from coming within 500 feet of the petitioner's residence. I'll hand my order down, to, be signed by the various parties. Copies will be made.
Clerk: Petitioner signs, right there. Thank you. And the respondent right there. All right. Um, h  He'll date that, I'll take it back and have him date it as well. Thank you. I need the date right there.
JvS: What's the date?
Clerk: I need the date right there.
RT: What's the date?
Clerk: It's the, it's June
JvS: Tenth.
Clerk: 10th.
JvS: Six Ten.
RT: June, Six, uh,   Ten. Thirteen.
Clerk: There you go. Thank you. I'll stamp this and get each of you your copies. Here's your copy. Here's your copy. Would you like a copy for your, files?
JvS: Uh,   It's not necessary.
Clerk: Okay.
JvS: Thanks.
JvS: Thank you your honor.
Judge: Okay. Court is adjourned.
Total 3h16m in session.
[Back to Lambert videos and storyline]
[e-Mail me]

© 2013   All Rights Reserved.
Transcribed from audio recording in public records at courthouse.

Stewart Andreason

transcript_CVH13-05.html Updated 2013.Nov.20